Introduction-Introduction-硕士论文硕士论文引言部分写法引言部分写法What key skills are needed whenwriting an Introduction?The Introduction presents the background knowledge that readers need so that they can appreciate how the findings of the paper are an advance on current knowledge in the field. A key skill is to be able to say the same things that have been said many times before but in a different, interesting, intriguing way.You have to give the reader the tools for understanding the meaning and motivation of your experiments.Tell your readers how you plan to develop your topic. Give them a roadmap to fol-low - show them what your line of argument is.You need to have a deep knowledge about everything that has been previously written on the topic and decide what is important for the reader to know.Typical complaints of refereesThe Introduction occupies too high a proportion of the entire paper and contains too many general statements that are already widely known. The rationale and objectives are not defined and the whole section is completely disorganized - it is not clear what problem the author is addressing or trying to solve and why they chose their particular methodology. Much of the initial part is essentially a cut and paste from the Abstract.The author has not related the background information to the objective of the paper. Also, there is no mention of what the reader can expect in the rest of the paper (i.e. main results and conclusions) and how this information will be structured (i.e. into the various sections).Please remember that the paper may be read by inexperienced Ph.D. students or oth-ers starting their work in your specific field. Hence, please add an explanation or at least a reference when mentioning notions related to and the terminology for .How should I structure the Introduction? An Introduction generally answers the following questions. You can use the answers to these questions to structure your Introduction. What is the problem? Are there any existing solutions (i.e. in the literature)? Which solution is the best? What is its main limitation? (i.e. What gap am I hoping to fill?) What do I hope to achieve? Have I achieved what I set out to do? How should I begin my Introduction? . an example of the structure of a typical IntroductionIt consists of a sequence of ten parts, each with a specific role. Your Introduction will not necessarily include all ten parts nor sequence them in the same order.Your aim is to include only enough background information to allow your reader to understand why you are asking the questions you are, in what context they appear, and why your hypotheses, predictions or expected results are reasonable. It is like a preview to the rest of the paper. Thus nearly every Introduction, irrespectively of the discipline, would incorporate those parts marked with an asterisk (*).The proportion of space given to each part (particularly with regard to the review of the literature) will obviously vary from discipline to discipline, and from paper to paper.begin with one or more of the first four parts listed below.1.definition of the topic plus background 2. accepted state of the art plus problem to be resolved 3. authors objectives An XYZ battery is a battery that . The electrodes in an XYZ telephone battery are made of a composite of gold and silver, coated with a layer of platinum. The gold and silver provide structural support, while the platinum provides resilience.The performance of the battery can be strongly affected by the number of times the battery is recharged and the duration of each individual recharge. The battery is subject to three possible failure modes. .A research program has recently been started by the authors in collaboration with a major battery manufacturer, with the goal of developing new design models for XYZ batteries. Analytical techniques are needed that can predict .4. Introduction to the literature.Computational techniques have been extensively applied to the study of the lifetime of XYZ batteries, in particular with regard to the number of times a battery is charged. However, little research to date has focused on the length of each individual rechargeBelow is an analysis of Parts 14 of the Introduction. In brackets is a very approximate indication of how many sentences you will probably need for each part.PART 1 DEFINITION OF THE TOPIC PLUS BACKGROUND (13)This introductory phrase may not be necessary in your paper. Here the definition of the XYZ battery indicates to the reader that this is the background topic (i.e. the general context) of the paper. This is the place to include notations, technical defini-tions, and explanations of key words.The second sentence gives information that readers should already be familiar with and suggests why the topic is important and of interest. It will help readers to under-stand why you are investigating this area and how you hope to extend the knowl-edge. It sets the context for the information that will follow in (3), which may be less familiar for your readers. Readers want to quickly learn what the specific topic of your research is, they are much less interested in being reminded how important the general area of research is.PART 2 ACCEPTED STATE OF THE ART PLUS PROBLEM TO BE RESOLVED (24)*In the example text, XYZ batteries is the general context. The authors now move from this general context to the specific area of their research: XYZ batteries in telephones, and more specifically, the problems inherent in such batteries. This is the gap that the authors want to fill and that the readers should be most interested in. This part should state in simple and clear language exactly what the problem is, why you chose it, why you claim it is important.PART 3 AUTHORS OBJECTIVES (12)*Here the authors outline their major objectives, i.e. how they intend to fill the gap. Parts 6 and 7 (see next page) could be incorporated here. This part also serves as a transition into the review of the literature.PART 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE This introduces the background literature that the authors intend to refer to in order to motivate their particular research. It makes a reference to current insufficient knowledge of the topic.This may be in a separate section with its own heading (Review of the Literature), or after the Results in a clinical paper, or incorporated into the Discussion.same way. Thus, some writing experts advise avoiding stock phrases (i.e. typical phrases that everyone uses) at the beginning of the introduction. For example:Recent advances in . The last few years have seen . Instead they recommended beginning in a more direct way.How does an Introduction differ from an Abstract? .There is some overlap between an Abstract and the Introduction. However, a fre-quent problem is that authors may cut and paste from their Abstract into their Introduction, which can be very repetitive for readersBelow are the first two sentences from the Abstract and Introduction from a paper entitledFragmentation of Rods by Cascading Cracks: Why Spaghetti Does Not Break in Half by Basile Audoly and Sbastien Neukirch. These sentences highlight the distinct ways that an Abstract and Introduction should be written.ABSTRACTWhen thin brittle rods such as dry spaghetti pasta are bent beyond their limit curvature, they often break into more than two pieces, typically three or four. With the aim of understanding these multiple breakings, we study the dynamics of a bent rod that is sud-denly released at one end.Introduction INTRODUCTION The physical process of fragmentation is relevant to several areas of science and technology. Because different physical phenomena are at work during the fragmentation of a solid body, it has mainly been studied from a statistical viewpoint 15.The Abstract immediately tells the readers the specific topic of the paper and then what the authors goal is (corresponding to Points 2, 3 and 7 in the structure of an Introduction given in Sects. 13.2 and 13.3). Instead, the Introduction sets the con-text in very general terms (Point 2).The abstract then continues as follows.ABSTRACT We find that the sudden relaxation of the curvature at this end leads to a burst of flexural waves, whose dynamics are described by a self-similar solution with no adjustable parameters. These flexural waves locally increase the curvature in the rod, and we argue that this counterintuitive mechanism is responsible for the fragmentation of brittle rods under bending.As you can see, the Abstract gives no further background information, but highlights what the authors found in their research. An absolute minimum num-ber of words have been used. This gives the Abstract substantial impact by tell-ing readers only what they need to know to enable them to decide whether to read the whole paper. As is standard for Abstracts, no references to the literature are made.On the other hand about 50% of the rest of the Introduction is dedicated to helping the readers see that the general trend given in the first two sentences is being countered by another line of research. In this case, references to the literature are made. Readers are alerted to the alternative trend by the link word nevertheless.INTRODUCTIONNevertheless a growing number of works have included physical consider-ations: surface energy contributions 6, nucleation and growth properties of the fracture process 7, elastic buckling 8, 9, and stress wave propagation 10. Usually, in dynamic fragmentation, the abrupt application of fracturing forces (e.g. by an impact) triggers numerous elementary breaking processes, making a statistical study of the fragments sizes possible. This is opposed to quasi-static fragmentation where a solid is crushed or broken at small applied velocities 11.The concluding sentence of the Abstract is:ABSTRACT A simple experiment supporting the claim is presented.This eight-word sentence is expanded considerably in the Introduction, by describ-ing more about what the experiment consisted in, and the result it gave. Note: the text reported below is the rest of the Introduction in its entirety.INTRODUCTION Here we consider such a quasi-static experiment whereby a dry spaghetti is bent beyond its limit curvature. This experiment is famous as, most of the time, the pasta does not break in half but typically in three to ten pieces. In this Letter, we explain this multiple failure process and point out a general mechanism of cascading failure in rods: a breaking event induces strong flexural waves which trigger other breakings, leading to an avalanche like process.What tenses should I use? I suggest you use a similar comparison between Abstracts and Introductions taken from your chosen journal, to see:what parts from Sects. 13.2 and 13.3 are covered in the Introduction. In the spaghetti paper, Parts 18 are condensed into eight sentences, Parts 9 and 10 are not mentioned how they are structured differently what elements from the Abstract the Introduction expands on how sentences from the Abstract are paraphrased in the Introduction what information is covered in the Abstract but not in the Introduction, and vice versa the relative word counts. This will give you an idea of the proportionate length of the Introduction compared to the Abstract. In the spaghetti paper the Abstract is 116 words, and the Introduction 201 words, so the Introduction is approximately twice as long. This is quite typical What tenses should I use? In this section, the example sentences S1, S3 and S5 are taken from Audoly and Neukirchs paper (Sect. 13.6), and S2, S4 and S6 from Rozeks paper (Sects. 13.4 and 14.2).The PRESENT SIMPLE is generally used to begin the Introduction in order to describe the general background context, i.e. what is known already.S1. The physical process of fragmentation is relevant to several areas of science and technology.S2. Persistence is an attribute valued by many.The PRESENT PERFECT is then used to show how the problem has been approached from the past until the present day.S3. Because different physical phenomena are at work during the fragmentation of a solid body, it has mainly been studied from a statistical viewpoint 15.S4. Persistence has most often been studied in terms of cultural differences.During the review of the literature several tenses are usedAt the end of the Introduction, the PRESENT SIMPLE is used again when the authors state what they will do in the rest of their paper (we explain, I hypothesize).S5. In this Letter, we explain this multiple failure process and point out a general mechanism of cascading failure in rods: a breaking event induces strong flexural waves which trigger other breakings, leading to an avalanche like process.S6. Because of these findings, I hypothesize that subjects with internal attribution styles (as measured by the APCSS), higher levels of perfectionism, and any form of feedback will show greater task persistence.In S5 Audoly and Neukirch use the PRESENT SIMPLE to report their findings (see the underlined verbs). Not all authors use the simple present tense in this context becausea general convention (but not rule) is that when you present your findings you use the PAST SIMPLE - the idea is to use the PRESENT SIMPLE for what is already accepted in the literature, and the PAST SIMPLE for your new contribution (Sect. 16.7).In S6 Rozek uses the FUTURE SIMPLE to talk about his claim / conclusion. This usage of the future tends to be confined to where authors set out to prove a hypoth-esis, rather than to give hard results.How should I outline the structure of my paper? Check with your journals instructions to authors with regard to whether an outline of the structure is required. If it is, or if you notice that all the papers in the journal have one, then your aim should be to describe this structure as concisely as possible (as in the RV).ORIGINAL VERSION (OV)The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2 a survey of the works related to X is provided. In Section 3 the method that we propose for the analysis of X is shown. In Section 4 the tool that automatizes this methodology is presented and in Section 5 its components are described. In Section 6 the experience in the application of the tool to industrial case studies is reported and discussed and finally, in Section 7, conclusions are provided and future works described.REVISED VERSION (RV)Section 2 surveys the works related to X. Section 3 outlines our method for analyzing X. In Section 4 the tool that automatizes this methodology is presented, and in Section 5 its components are described. Section 6 discusses some industrial case studies using the toolThe RV is approximately half the length of the OV, 45 words rather than 84. This is achieved by:deleting unnecessary sentences. Some journals and reviewers advise that there is no need to have an initial sentence saying The paper is structured as follows. Simply beginning a new paragraph at the end of the Introduction is enough to alert the reader that you are now going to talk about the structure using active verbs (surveys) rather than only passive (a survey . is provided ). For the sake of variety, the RV also includes some passive forms. But you could, if you wish, use active forms throughout and thus would further reduce the length of the paragraph removing other redundancy. For example, the phrase the experience in the application of the tool to industrial case studies is reported and discussed is unnecessarily verboseSummary: How can I assess the quality of my Introduction? To make a self-assessment of your Introduction, you can ask yourself the following questions.Is my research question clear? Does my Introduction act as a clear road map for understanding my paper? Is it sufficiently different from the Abstract, without any cut and pastes? (some overlap is fine) Have I mentioned only what my readers specifically need to know and what I will subsequently refer to in the Discussion? Have I been as concise as possible? Have I used tenses correctly? PRESENT SIMPLE (general background context, description of what will be done in the paper), PRESENT PERFECT (past to present solutions), PAST SIMPLE (my contribution, though this may also be expressed using the PRESENT SIMPLE or FUTURE SIMPLE)The second sentence gives information that readers should already be familiar with and suggests why the topic is important and of interest. It will help readers to under-stand why you are investigating this area and how you hope to extend the knowl-edge. It sets the context for the information that will follow in (3), which may be less familiar for your readers. Readers want to quickly learn what the specific topic of your research is, they are much less interested in being reminded how important the general area of research is.PART 2 ACCEPTED STATE OF THE ART PLUS PROBLEM TO BE RESOLVED (24)*In the example text, XYZ batteries is the general context. The authors now move from this general context to the specific area of their research: XYZ batteries in telephones, and more specifically, the problems inherent in such batteries. This is the gap that the authors want to fill and that the readers should be most interested in. This part should state in simple and clear language exactly what the problem is, why you chose it, why you claim it is important.PART 3 AUTHORS OBJECTIVES (12)*Here the authors outline their major objectives, i.e. how they intend to fill the gap. Parts 6 and 7 (see next page) could be incorporated here. This part also serves as a transition into the review of the literature.PART 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATUREThis introduces the background literature that the authors intend to refer to in order to motivate their particular research. It makes a reference to current insufficient knowledge of the topic.This may be in a separate section with its own heading (Review of the Literature), or after the Results in a clinical paper, or incorporated into the Discussion. 3 How should I structure the rest of the Introduction? The Introduction outlined the previous subsection continues as follows:FUNCTIONAUTHORS TEXT5survey of pertinentMore recent research has occurred in the field of laptopliteratureand jPud batteries. Evans 15 studied the lifetime in5G jPud batteries. Smith 16 and Jones 18 found that. However their findings failed to account for .6authors contributionTo the best of our knowledge there are no results in theliterature regarding how the length of each rechargeimpacts on the silver and gold in the electrodes.7aim of the present workThe aim of the present work is to construct a model toperform a comprehensive investigation of the effect ofrecharging on the electrodes, and to find a new proportionin the amount of metals used. The assumptions of Smith16 and Jones 18 are used as a starting point. .8main results / conclusionsThe results of the model are encouraging and showthat .9future implicationsThis new model will be able to .10outline of structureSection 2 introduces the concept of .Below is an analysis of Parts 510.结束结束